Question of the Day: What Are “Reasonable Restrictions” On Guns?

Over at TTAG’s Facebook page, Todd Ellner gave me a ration of you-know-what for being closerthanthis with the NRA. Huh? TTAG’s criticized the gun rights group for not reaching out to African Americans, Hispanic, gays and women. We’ve slated them for being slower than continental drift when it comes to reacting to breaking news. And we’ve called the NRA out for waving the blue shirt (fears of U.N disarmament). Mr. Elmer also didn’t like the fact we’re against ALL “reasonable restrictions” on firearms. Rather than debate on generalities, I asked him for examples of “reasonable restrictions” Here’s his reply . . .

OK – here are a few

1) Firearms trusts cannot be used by people who would otherwise be barred from owning the weapons in question. The current proposal to require fingerprinting and vetting of all people authorized by these trusts is a good one

2) The background check requirements that the NRA fought so bitterly against in the last couple months really were a good idea.

3) Modify records-keeping so dealers can’t destroy 4473s as some do out of misguided political convictions. And when they go out of business the ATF gets them. Make each form and NICS check come with a unique identifier, not identifying the weapon or the recipient but the transaction. If the dealer can’t show that he still has the form that goes with the transaction, then loss of FFL and legal consequences. If a pharmacist can do this a gun dealer should be able to.

4) A couple dozen dealers are responsible (pro- and anti-gun types agree as well as legitimate academic researchers) for a disproportionate number of illegal sales, straw sales, out-of-state sales, sales without NICS check and sales of weapons which end up in criminal hands. Don’t defend them. Come down hard on them. I’ve seen this proposed a few times. Each time RKBA lobbyists have screamed.

5) Stop blocking the appointment of the top tier of ATF management. It’s gone beyond silly posturing to active sabotage of the legitimate business of government [ED: Todd Jones was recently confirmed as the new ATF jefe.]

6) Self-defense with Castle Doctrine and No Duty to Retreat when it’s not safe to do so is great. I’m a strong proponent. The current crop of SYG laws has been used as “Kill all the Witnesses” laws. Their use by criminal gangs to skate after gunfights with other gangs on the grounds that the combatants had a right to be in the public place is a sign that laws are really horrible pieces of legislation. Governor Dukakis left office decades ago. Time to stop fighting that battle

7) A single nationwide shall-issue standard for CCW with nationwide reciprocity. Require significant, not prohibitive and not homeopathic, training and competence testing for that license. Iowa, I’m looking at you; if you are so impaired that you can’t drive a car with corrective lenses it is not safe for you to carry firearms in public.

8) End the importation bans on Chinese firearms and ammunition and the new ban on re-importation of old weapons like Garands

9) Re-fund and re-open the Courts that were supposed to allow felons who had served their time to get their civil rights back. In return, institute a policy for prosecutors to stop bargaining away felon-in-possession charges right off the bat.

10) More complicated and requires political will: Drastically reduce the use of paramilitary training and equipment for civilian police. Stop using them as a market for what would otherwise be military contracts. This is a 40 year old problem. Curbing it would reduce the arms race between criminals and police (cf. NIJ study whose reference escapes me that trends in criminal weapons choice mirror police choice with a lag of a few years).

Those are some specifics. Hope they provide useful clarification.

And when it’s not safe to shoot, it’s not safe to shoot. Recent deadly wildfires in Utah and Colorado were caused by people shooting in areas with dry vegetation. The howls when officials suggested a moratorium on outdoor recreational shooting were loud. Your right to shoot for fun or practice does not extend to setting fires that kill people and cause millions of dollars worth of damage.

Oh yes, one other reasonable restriction: Requiring less environmentally harmful ammunition for hunting waterfowl is NOT a Commi plot to take our guns. It won’t kill anyone to use bismuth, steel, copper or some other alloy for those few dozen shots when you’re actually out on the water. That lead does real, measurable harm.

I personally would love for a way for civilians(non-FFL) to get access to running NICS check without going to a dealer. I would love to be able to vet that the person I am selling to isn’t a terrible person.

I would love to see them get rid of restriction on suppressors and automatic rifles. I think the determining factor for whether something should be in civilian hands should be if you can use that weapon on an attacker from talking distance without protective gear, and survive. This would essentially limit bombs and napalm.

Sorry, I have to jump in here at the top of the pile, although I hope some or several people lower down will also bring up the point.

The Bill of Rights was created by the Founders to enumerate those natural, civil and constitutionally protected rights that the federal government (and hopefully all other levels of government) had no authority to restrict, rescind, or modify. The Second Amendment was precisely there to give the citizenry a means of protecting the other nine amendments from government abuse.

Therefore, how does the question of “Reasonable restrictions” not stand in EXACT and total opposition to “…shall not be infringed”? All other debate seems ludicrous and superfluous.

Just as reasonable regulation as to place and time does not necessarily ‘abridge’ free speech, reasonable regulation of firearms to, for instance, keep them out of the hands of criminals, children and the insane does not necessarily ‘infringe’ the right to keep and bear arms.

The courts have never taken an absolutist approach to any part of the Bill of Rights. I don’t why this argument, which completely ignores over two hundred years of Bill of Rights jurisprudence, keeps getting repeated.

I love how people bring children into the argument. Children are not involved in the discussion. Juvenile Law, as was defined when I was a juvenile, was that the laws were to protect them from the dumb mistakes we all make in the process of growing up. They also are not given all the rights an adult is. This would happen when they become adults (usually 18 years of age). It is a distraction and emotional argument to include the term “children” in the debate.

As far as current law and precedent, the term, “shall not be infringed” in this case is ambiguous at best. Only due to (we’ll call them) mistakes in the legal process over the last 200 plus years.

If you read the documents and writings of the authors of the Constitution (The Federalist papers as an example) and look at the facts during the time period (cannon and other artillery being brought to battles by private citizens). We see that regardless of what a judge, lawyer, or any other “well-meaning” functionary decided. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says.

The intent of the statement is in plan English. Which is entirely to simple for the legal profession to grasp. Many believe there has to be a hidden meaning or they meant something else. History shows that when the states demanded the Bill of Rights, what they required was very straight forward. No ambiguity, subtleties, etc… this way they hoped to have no misunderstandings. I guess we screwed that up.

“Just as reasonable regulation as to place and time does not necessarily ‘abridge’ free speech, reasonable regulation of firearms to, for instance, keep them out of the hands of criminals, children and the insane does not necessarily ‘infringe’ the right to keep and bear arms.”

Just because an argument sounds good doesn’t make it right. NONE of the other rights enumerated in the BOR are regulated. Especially not free speech. You can 100% falsely yell fire in a theater. And you are not afforded 1A protection for doing so. To “reasonably regulate” 1A rights in this context the way that the 2A has been regulated would be to ban the actual word “fire”.

“Reasonable regulation” does not mean what you want it to mean. Making guns illegal because someone else did something bad with one, or because someone *could* do something bad with one is irresponsible nanny state bullshit at best, and tyrannical in practice. Plus it has zero impact on crime.

Reasonable restrictions include: NO OPEN CARRY, PERIOD. No scary looking guns. No magazines with a capacity over 7. Waiting periods. High concealed carry permit fees to weed out the undesirables. Severe zoning restrictions on ranges and gun stores. No carry 1000 feet from a school.

From your proposal for ” High concealed carry permit fees to weed out the undesirables,” I take it you believe there are no wealthy “undesirables,” and/or that someone who is poor is a de facto undesirable. Well, either one of those propositions is news to me.

Hah! Exactly. But why stop at 1000 feet from a school? As then-state-senator Obama wanted, ban all guns within 5 miles of a school, which is an effective ban on guns everywhere apart from some rural areas.

15 rounds, 10 rounds, 7 rounds… 1 round? In order for the gun-controllers utopia to even have a chance at reducing real “gun violence”, per their definition, they have only one choice but to eventually just plain ban anything that shoots a projectile capable of breaking the skin.

“The 2nd amendment meant muskets. The founders never meant for citizens to have today’s “assault weapons”” or some other silly argument.

But roughly 2/3’s are suicide. How many rounds does that typically use? And why would you think what size magazine or firearm “features” ban would make a difference? You could probably raise that number above the 2/3rds mark when looking at accidental discharges, murder, self-defense, etc. But it suffices the “we don’t really want all your guns” end game.

And would a magazine limit reduce this rate?). How many accidents, shootings (self-defense or homicide), etc use more than one round?

I don’t think we should even play the game by using their terminology, “reasonable restrictions”. How about “reasonable restrictions” on how much pizza you can eat? Or how much beer you can drink? How high a grade your kids can get? How many miles you can drive in a day?

The list improved as it went on. 7-10 are all right. To 9 I would add that non-violent felonies do not strip away gun rights at all, or at least that the government needs to make a special showing that stripping those rights is necessary for public safety (for which they carry the burden by clear and convincing evidence) at sentencing and the judge needs to agree.

Unfortunately, there is some evidence that those who commit nonviolent felonies are also the ones who commit violent ones. That’s one explanation for why, when former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani instituted zero law enforcement tolerance for such peccadillos as subway turnstile-jumping, and had the turnstile jumpers arrested, mugging and strong-arm robbery rates also dropped, which suggested that those jumping the turnstiles were the pool from which those committing the muggings and strong-arm robberies were drawn.

Well, it’s not all terrible, but the major underlying problem I see with his suggestions are the wrong-headed notions that somehow laws- in general- deter criminals from getting guns and doing bad things. Background checks don’t apply to crooks. Neither do importation bans. Or self defense laws.
The idea that a paper trail or required training does anything to prevent bad people from doing bad things is hopelessly naive.
I think the reason that we can’t ever sit down and actually discuss this with the handful of gun control guys that aren’t just pushing disarmament is that these guys have bought this stupid notion that legal gun owners are responsible for what criminals do. That’s no different than blaming any entire race or group for the actions of a few assholes, something these same people would never dare do with any other group but gun owners.
And then they wonder why we get pissed off and defensive when they want us to hear out their “reasonable” gun reforms….

Reasonable restrictions would be restrictions that would actually have some valid practical reason for existing.

For example, a restriction forcing me to give a bunch of my private information to the fed because some criminals in a city where I do not live are shooting each other, no valid practical reason for existing, therefore unreasonable.

Another example, if someone commits a crime with a gun once or twice, prosecute them and put them in jail, don’t just release them back out on the street and give them a security clearance. That restriction would have a valid practical reason for existing, hence reasonable.

I think you misread the post, Taylor Tx. The poster says nothing about the gun-toting capabilities of those whose vision is correctible enough by glasses, to permit them to drive a car legally. The poster is talking about people who are legally blind, that is, whose vision CANNOT be thus corrected.

I have a friend who is legally blind, and he can see well enough to engage a man-sized target at 7 yards. His disability makes him a good target for a criminal. Since most DGUs take place inside 7 yards, I see no reason he should be denied the ability to defend himself.

And with good reason. The people that wrote the Constitution firmly understood that the rights enumerated therein are natural rights granted by God. They are not provided by the government, and the government has not the power to restrict that which it does not provide.

Again the crime is the action not the tool. Everyone has the right to defend themselves. Freedom can be dangerous but it is worth it.

By restricting even a “criminal” (as long as they are an Adult and capable of making choices or not bat sh!* crazy). We are setting a precedent that the government has the right to restrict our natural right of self defense.

That being said, the FULL weight of the law. No deals, no parole, no nothing for anyone who abuses the right (i.e. infringes on another’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Unless it is in self defense or the defense of others which I do not believe would be an abuse but stating it to be clear.

Zero restrictions, other than true weapons of mass destruction (NBC weapons). Artillery, not sure where you would shoot it but go for it. Crew Served weapons, if you can afford it why not. Full Auto, of course. Silencers, beats ear plugs and ear muffs.

There’s no such thing as a reasonable restriction on a natural right. The fact that some fascists like Todd think there should be shows that there’s a big difference between American by birth and American in spirit.

Love how he likens cars, pharmacists, etc to a Constitutionally-protected right. Hey Todd, show me where in the Constitution drugs and cars are protected as basic rights that shall not be infringed, and I’ll concede this whole argument to you. Once something is regulated and restricted, it’s no longer a “right.” Not that hard to understand, even for you I’m sure.

Gun control has been proven to fail again and again, yet leftists keep trying. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Todd proves once again that the greatest enemies of our nation aren’t living in caves across the ocean, but rather the houses next door. They’re not brown people with AKs, they’re white leftists with mental and moral deficiencies who unfortunately have the same right to vote as anyone else.

“Of course there are. I can’t engage in libel, slander, or using a bullhorn at 3am to confront the neighbor with whom I have a disagreement and hide behind ‘freedom of speech’, a natural right.”

Wring. You “can” do anything you want to. Who exactly is stopping you, physically? You are right now capable of doing any of those things. In a Free society, however, you would be accountable for the consequences of your antics.

I left it out because it required no further comment. I know for a fact, that I said the same thing at least once previously. It also deserved no further comment because the premise is that I advocated the opposite, which, already stated, is untrue.

Are we really going to continue to banter semantics? You go ahead, I’ll watch.

The problem is the current anti-gun political machine wants what it wants, and in my opinion that’s to turn these United States into Canada or *gulp* the United Kingdom. Good luck passing any of this.

For there to be a compromise, both sides need to be willing to give ground. Pro-gun political interests have seen what happens when we give ground to anti-gun political interests, both in the United States (California, Maryland, New York, New Jersey) and abroad (Australia, UK, Germany, Canada). It isn’t pretty and it sure as hell isn’t a compromise.

They are not interested in actually crafting “common sense gun laws”. They are interested in eviscerating our RKBA.

Except….. who gets to decide what qualifies as significant? How often do they get to change the definition of significant? How frequent is the testing, who provides it, and how much does it cost? How often do you have to test? I have had my drivers license for about 30 years now and I only had to take two tests, one for the car and one for the motorcycle… is my gun license under this ‘reasonable’ plan going to be handled in a similar manner?

Well this Todd Ellner seems to be well-informed at least. And some of the stuff on this list does seem reasonable (reasonable as in reasonable, not the usual “reasonable” that antis usually describe their crap with). Stuff like #8 I would absolutely love, though I’m pretty sure the stuff in #2 would mean I’d have to get checked before buying from private citizens, which I’m against.

#2 is pretty much the only thing on this list I’m opposed to. I’m not really fond of #3, but I think if you removed #2 then they still wouldn’t be able to build any kind of real gun registry (which is my main concern), as there would still be so many transactions between citizens that they couldn’t track it.

” then they still wouldn’t be able to build any kind of real gun registry”

I’m going to bet (not state, because I don’t have any evidence) that that particular ship has already sailed. Put aside government records or privately held records (dealers) for a moment. Still, with the e-info that the government has been grabbing…

Have you ever used a credit card at a gun shop? Purchased guns, ammo, or accessories on line? Posted regularly on a pro-RTKBA website? Purchased a hunting license? Commented to a friend in gmail or on facebook about any gun you own, or a time you went shooting? Openly stated on social media that you are an NRA member? The list goes on.

The Feds might not have the resources (algorithms and processing power) needed to sort though all that yet. In fact, I doubt they do. But they have the raw data. And it won’t be long before they can boil it down to a rough but pretty good list of doors to break down if they ever decide to go that way.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t fight further efforts by the government to collect info. No reason to make it easier for them.

1. Treat all firearms as they are loaded
2. Never point the muzzle as something you do not want to destroy
3. Give your finger off the trigger until your sights are on your target
4. Know your target, what is beyond it and around it

Still waiting for the gun control laws to actually apply as a prosecutable charge to the bad guys! Dang that pesky 5th amendment!

Still waiting for the BATF to prosecute more than 1% of those rejected!

Still waiting for the BATF to catch more than 26 straw buyers in a year when they allow over 297,577 to pass the background checks and buy over 446,000 guns !

Still waiting for the BATF to allow civilian access to the NICS for private sales!

Still waiting on the background checks to prevent more than .04 % of a person being injured a year while spending more than $300 million a year to run the background checks!

Still waiting for the BATF to force the 95.52% of bad guys (over 2.9 mil on 2010 alone) who dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with!

Still waiting on the govt. to fund and resource data input of the severely mentally ill in the US, when as of Mar 2013 only 4.865 mil out of approx 31.795 mil severely mentally ill and felons in the US were in the NICS database.

Still waiting on the govt. to fund and resource to go after the 1.043 mil people wanted on open felony warrants, of whom 50% are probably severely mentally ill as are 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners are.

While I would like to see some “reasonable” way for people with severe mental issues to not have guns, by allowing the federal or local governments and the NIMH to decide what is a reasonably restricted mental illness and who it applies to kind of gives them carte blanche to infringe on the 2A, doesn’t it? If you give them ANY authority to make a restriction or set a standard you have moved the Second Amendment from a natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to an entirely arbitrary right granted to you by the government according to their rules and standards.

It seems to me that the most effective way to deal with people who have severe mental issues is to ensure that their potential victims have the unrestricted ability to shoot back. The problem would resolve itself in short order.

Still waiting on all the mass shootings to be listed in zones where guns are allowed!

That means if civilians had been allowed to be armed in those 63 other incidents, there could have been 843 people prevented from being injured!

The anti gun freaks really hate it when you tell them they should go to the families of those 1,007, look them in the eye, and tell them you supported disarming them when an armed defender could have prevented so many injuries!

I have two minds here. In a more ideal world, there would be things that would be unobjectionable in themselves. E.g., registration. Whether it would be worth it, by itself it isn’t an issue. But put it in our societal context and registration is easily used as a tool for an abuse by the State (confiscation). So there are things that, in the abstract, might not be bad, that are because of concrete circumstances.

The way I see it, I would strip the current laws and start from scratch. Several different categories of weapons. One would be WMD’s with severe restrictions even on the Federal government. At the other ends would be knives, swords, bow and arrows where there wouldn’t be almost any regulation (except maybe no commercial sales to minors and not allowed in prisons). I would distinguish weapons that are not suitable for the individual rifleman from say cruise missiles and tanks. Speaking of just small arms, I would have licensing of commercial manufacturers with this in mind- that the guns be made of sufficient quality to safely operate. I would allow unlicensed carry in most places. Offer a license (shall issue, requirements are training/education) for sensitive areas. And I would have gun safety education in the schools (even those who hate guns would like their children to act properly if they come accross one). I would also allow truly military weapons (like tanks) to be owner privately under strict rules of ownership and use. That would be discretionary. Not the owning of small arms. Lastly, I would relegate prohibitted person status to those currently incarerated and outside of that as a particular punishment to be given at sentencing for a set period (not all punishment should be imprisonment, forfeiture of this or that right, community service, etc, should be options). Hence I could see someone who is carrying a gun drunk and brandishes it, relinquishing his rights for say a year and ordered to take classes. But it would have to be fitted to the offense, no more blanket either your are prohibitted for life or not at all BS.

Not every regulation is “an infringement” Without going into American constitutional law or the difference between a proper natural right and a derivative right (the right to arms is a derivative one, i.e. it follows from the right to self-defense), no right is unlimited.

Absolute, yes. Not unlimited. If you see those as synonyms you are as guilty as liberals who insist that “well regulated” means subject to licensing and restrictions.

See, it is all fine and well to say “shall not be infringed”. But say how about a law prohibiting the discharge of firearms in city limits, or at occupied buildings. Well, you say, that is not a prohibition on “keeping and bearing” but on the particular use. True enough. So just outlaw any and all discharge of firearms, even in self-defense. But you would say no, that defeats the (main) purpose of a right to keep and bear arms, self-defense. True, but the argument made is not merely “shall not be infringed” you have to explain why this law is not an infringement and that one is, by pointing to the “ratio” of the right. Both in the positivistic legal context (keep in mind most justices, including Scalia, are radical liberal positivists. It is a right because the Constitution says it is. If that changess, so would the right. I am a natural law guy… the Constitution does indeed create certain rights, i.e. civil rights, but other rights are merely recognized)

The right to keep and bear arms is-
1. Derivative. While there are many legitimate uses of firearms, what makes it a right is it connection, logically and historically, with a more immediate right, e.g. self-defense

2. Natural- It is not merely based on positive, human law. A law wholly against it, even via Constitutional amendment, would be unjust.

3. But it is also civil- it is established in positive law, and arguably given a broader scope (a militia going beyond personal defense, to defense of the community, against foreign and domestic enemies)

4. It is a communal right or societal right insofar as, in the laws and order of our society, we as citizens are directed to help safeguard the common good through arms. In this aspect, on a natural level (prescinding from positive and mutable law, like the constitution) it does fall within the rights of the State to regulate and even restrict, except insofar as that would endanger the security of the state. The primary end here is the welfare of the state.

5. It is also a personal right. This aspect is based on self-defense. In this respect the state is not free to pass whatever restrictions or regulations they want, but must respect the natural basis of the right. The primary end here is the welfare of the individual

6. per 2 & 5 the right is absolute. But this does not mean no limitations. The word absolute does not mean that. That would be anachronistic. What it means is that it does not depending on the will of anyone except in the person in whom the right inheres. I.e. the validity of me owning arms depends solely on me. The existence of such a right is guaranteed by my nature, but not its extent (save what is necessary to preserve its essence, dignity and safeguard it from attack). An old example is the right to life. Not even to safeguard the State may the government kill an innocent person. Since the right to life is not given by the State. But if I should debase myself in wickedness, say through murder, then I forfeit my right and may be executed. A fortiori, a person can forfeit, through his actions, a personal right he possesses. If life, then any right may be forfeited. Shall not be infringed…does that apply to inmates in the penn? Likewise, I can be ordered (cf. number 4) to risk life and limb for the common good. This derives from a duty I have to my country. Hence rights and duties condition the extent of other rights and duties.

7. This right is also moral. I mean that in the old sense of the term, meaning it pertains to the realm of deliberate choice. All rights are moral means to some due end (here preserving my own life). The possession of a right is a moral claim to some field of activity. Here keeping and bearing arms. However, some people lack the faculties by which they can truly possess such rights. We do not say an infant has the right to do much of anything, because it lacks the ability to exercise free choice. And rights pertain to that faculty. Likewise, a person who is mentally handicapped (quasi infans) would not possess actually the right to keep and bear arms, anymore than a baby would. The right would be virtual (i.e. they still have human nature, which this right is ultimately based on), but not actual until such a time that they have or regain the free use of their faculties. It would be legitimate, the, for others to stop a child or a mentally handicapped person who cannot be said to be exercising a right due to their faculties being impeded, from keeping and bearing arms. Does shall not infringe contradict this?

8. Ultimately any and all rights have real limits. Which, in a just society, are determined by the essential needs of the person. That is, the extent of any right is coextensive with the end for which it exists. And in natural rights, that end is some good which the human person is ordered to (say his own life). Limitations necessary for public order, that does not violate this, are not infringements, since the right remains intact, sacred and inviolate. Limitations imposed that do impeded the obtainment of the end on which the right is based are infringments.

Now this is long and winder. But rights theory is a pet interest of mine. We would do well to go beyond rhetoric and ad hoc rationalizations.

Reasonable restriction: any restriction placed on firearms use or ownership applies equally to civilians AND all LEO/Government entities that operate domestically (everyone other than DOD and CIA). No exemptions; government and civilians all play by the same rules.

Reasonable restriction: Every adult non-felon is allowed to own and possess the common past, present, and any future service weapon of a typical infantryman, military officer, and LEO. This is in keeping with the militia tradition. Crew-served weapons, tanks, nuclear arms could be excluded under this rule.

I support three “reasonable restrictions” and all of them involve possessing handguns in public:

(1) Trigger:
You must carry a handgun in a properly fitting holster that covers the entire trigger guard and retains the handgun even when the carrier is upside down.Huge Exception: carry your handgun any way you like if its trigger has the same characteristics as a classic double action only revolver with an 8 pound minimum trigger.
Note: if your handgun operates either way (single and double action), then carry any way you want if you carry in double action trigger mode and the trigger is at least 8 pounds, otherwise carry in a properly fitting holster as I detailed above.

(2) Locations with Young Children (basically schools):
You must carry your handgun somewhere on your body … no purse or briefcase carry.

(3) “Gun Free” Locations:
The only type of location where I would support total disarmament is any location that has equivalent security to a maximum security prison which provides storage lockers for employees and visitors to store their handguns while in the facility. Note that maximum security prisons have outer fences with barbed wire, inner fences with barbed wire, multiple secured gates and doors, guards armed with semi-automatic rifles along the path, and a large outer perimeter.

At the school district where I worked at teachers had purses stolen, wallet5s stolen out of purses. ! employee that did not deal with students and had her purse locked in a cabinet in a room that was off limits to student had her purse stolen and the student was caught trying to use her credit casrds at the local mall.

Wow! Where to begin on this one?
1. NFA Trusts and those barred from owning guns: Most firearm laws pertain to possession and not ownership so the point is moot. Felons caught in possession (in their grasp, on their person or in their home) are already in violation of their parole so off to the pokey anyway. Changes to NFA Trust rules would not affect them.
2. Background check requirements: Since you did not elaborate, I can assume you didn’t truly understand them. Neither did we, or the NRA or the legislators that wrote them or read them. Thus “No ticky, No washy”.
3. 4473 forms and record keeping: I believe this law already exists. FFL holders correct me if I am wrong.
4. Straw sales: Current laws need to be enforced effectively before trying to ram new legislation down our throats. (pro- and anti-gun types agree as well as legitimate academic researchers)
5. ATF Head: Legitimate business of government is in the eye of the governed. Abuses of power and departmental cover-ups are SOP at the ATF. Until the people feel comfortable with them, extra scrutiny is warranted and yes; even sabotage.
6. Stand Your Ground: By your reasoning, a gang-banger gets to determine if I have the right to claim a reasonable defense after eliminating a threat? See response to number 4 above. Still applies.
7. Nationwide CCW: Shall-Issue= Bad. Will-Issue= Better. Pass the local requirements for CCW and permit issued. End of story. No further questions.
8. Importation and re-importation: Agreed. Now you’re talkin’!
9. Civil rights to felons: Ok. I can get behind this. It could be a start but not easy to get through.
10. Militarization of Police: Man! You are starting to sound rational.

As for you assumption on the link to shooting and wildfires. Re-read the report. Trees are not made of steel and wood does not spark from being hit with lead. Never happened. Never will.

I work in the wildland firefighting bizz. Fires are started (rarely, but they are started) by target shooters. Adherence to the 4th rule of “know what you are shooting at and what is behind it” would fix the problem. The target shooting fires I’ve seen have been from people shooting into rocky backstops mixed with various grassy fuel types in AZ, NV and NM during the dry season. They are unintentional and education is the answer to this type of problem. Side note, the Rim Fire (Yosemite) was started by a campfire from a bow hunter. Not that it should matter here, but still good info for those that think having a gun now means you’re also an arsonist.

Josh; steel jacketed/core stuff are the primary culprits when it comes to ricochets. I really think just a little education out there would help in this regard if everyone would just stop with the “I’ll believe it when I see it” talk. There also are some people that really are just plain stupid that fire tracer and dragon breath rounds during the dry season that will easily spark a fire. Last year, we had some guy in UT start a wildfire with an exploding target (I know he wasn’t the first and won’t be the last). There really are people that just don’t think it through or just don’t care. I really hope the people on this site would pass that information around for educational purposes. Anything we can do to take ammo away from the other side is a plus in my opinion. The thing that really gets lost when people start talking about “20 fires were started in NV last year by target shooters” is that 20 fires is usually less than 1 percent of all the wildfires for the year in that state. The public just never hears about how many wildfires there are unless one of Tom Hanks’ dozen homes is gonna burn down.

Unless they were tracers/incendiary rounds?… or maybe spraying tall dry grass with constant muzzle flashes?! I may be ignorant… but I’m pretty sure there’s almost no chance of ignition with standard loads – unless maybe you’re pumping some serious lead down range, barrel heats up & you lay it down in said vegetation? (here’s your sign)… Somebody correct me if I’m wrong on this, actually need to know – 1/4″ of rain here since August 1.

I suppose I could offer comments on the specific proposals (some I like more than others, some are problematic but could be modified to be better, etc) but I’d rather make the broader point that this set of proposals is the sort of thing that discussion of gun rights/control needs from the gun control side. So much of what we hear from those arguing for more regulation of guns pays, at best, only rhetorical tribute to law-abiding gun ownership, and this precludes trust, discussion, and compromise. Why should I give in to people who are offering nothing in return? Because they say (now) that they won’t take everything from me in the future? I don’t think so. In contrast, the proposals above add some regulations, but remove others, and are thus are a basis for genuine compromise. I’d be willing to make some trades, such as expanding background checks to cover some private sales (something I do not object to in principle, though implementation could be sticky) in exchange for eliminating many gun free zones.

Are you actually willing to trade your natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to self defense for some liberal promise that they will not abuse their statist power? That’s EXACTLY what will happen because as soon as the government is allowed ANY authority to modify or regulate the terms of the Second Amendment or any of the Bill of Rights you have moved them into the realm of rights granted by the government to the people, not rights belonging to the people and protected from the government.

Shall not be infringed is a very simple concept and even the slightest crack in this edifice will result in its eventual collapse. I would submit that even supposed regulation of crew-served, high explosive or nuclear weapons (as if) is unnecessary since even if you could afford such things their miss-use would bring down upon you the legitimate and massive law enforcement function of the government. People with this kind of economic resources are seldom so foolish, James Bond stories to the contrary.

I believe the argument about “reasonable restrictions” is a false argument anyway. I think we would all be able to agree on a few restrictions as reasonable IF AND ONLY IF it were going to stop at that. The problem I have is that the political nature of our society is in fact a very slippery slope. If you give an inch they will take a mile…… and your guns, and your house, and destroy your business and obliterate your freedom one inch at a time.

At what point do the anti’s and Dems have to actually “compromise” with US instead of our rights constantly being the trade off? When do they have to start “crossing the isle” for a reason other than saving their sorry jobs? When do they have to start retracting failed policy based on FACTS instead of strengthening them based on emotion?

Gun free zones are a HORRENDOUS FAILURE of an idea! When do they have to come to grips with that and abolish them on their own? Since the facts support the failure of gun free zones wouldn’t that be a REASONABLE course of action?

Since tougher gun restrictions in an area are almost directly linked with higher crime and vice versa wouldn’t it be REASONABLE to reverse those tougher gun restrictions?

How about a REASONABLE request….. I’d like to see policy dictated by facts, evidence, common sense and the will of the actual people for a change instead of by greed, emotion, political pandering and the elites who “know better” than their constituents.

1) the background checks while problematic are not the issue with trusts – the CLEO siggy is.
2) sure!…in theory, but when the ink hit the paper and it got through committee, we were dealing with a different animal all together.
3) your talking about a registry, again. Illegal and highly abusable. No gun owner will go near it. It is not a reasonable proposition to trust my government.
4) This is out of your ass. Who agrees…and where did any of this information come from? If we know that much about this “couple of dozen”, then the problem should already be solved right? Its BS.
5) I’m still not sure how a private organization can be said to be blocking a government appointment, but whatever, he’s been appointed…move on.
6) More unsubstantiated crap. “kill all witnesses”…really? This is not a “reasonable compromise” if I can prove that these doctrines save more lives than they let criminal go free…which I can.
7)There is a very specific reason for States Rights on this topic. 50 trials of methods are better than 1 untested mandate, and it preserves the right of people to vote with there feet. I won’t reason the Constitution into superfluousness.
8)That’s almost reasonable, how about we just end “bans”.
9)How about if you’ve served your time, you become a full citizen again, with all rights intact?
10)There is NO arms race between criminals and police. Are you seriously suggesting that in a few years gang-bangers will be conducting drive-bys in MRAPs? Cops should have access to the same equipment as the people with which they dwell/work and VICE VERSA. That seems reasonable, without the BS cop-aganda.

Some worth a debate on facts. Not interested in an all or none package based on his interpretation of reasonableness nor would I give much credit yo his claim that TTAG endorsed NRA wholeheartedly for he obviously hasnt read much here.

Not sure how much NRA listened but many good ideas here ended up being used quite well by NRA…diverse gun folk spokespersons for example.

SO. If he is serious invite him here by name or call sign and go down the list. Always wiiling to discuss and educate others and myself more.

1) Has this really been a problem(other than Dorner)?
2) Show me some evidence that background checks prevent criminals from getting firearms, or even that background checks have had a noticeable impact on crime.
3) Same as 2- this may seem like “common sense”, but is there any evidence that this would actually prevent crime, or aid in the the solving of a crime?
4) Derp. These “bad dealers” are high volume dealers. If you can show that certain dealers have a higher proportion of “bad” sales then it would be appropriate to investigate/shut them down, but otherwise you are just penalizing a dealer for being successful.
5) Stop trying to appoint anti-gun idealogue to head up the ATF. That would be like appointing someone opposed to agriculture to head to the USDA.
6) DERPdeDERP! SYG has nothing to do with “kill all witnesses”. SYG does not in any way legalize the murder of witnesses, this is an absolutely ridiculous assertion!
7) Maybe, although I don’t necessarily trust the government to institute a reasonable permitting process. National reciprocity with the states implementing the process and procedure would be better, even if the feds established a minimal criteria (ie. felony & mental health). PS: Can you show me one case of a “blind” person in IA has misued a CCW permit?
8) I like that suggestion.
9) Sounds reasonable, although I don’t necessarily agree that felons should be deprived the means of self defense. Punish them for using a gun, not owning one.
10) Got any evidence of an actual arms race between criminals and police? How often do police come across AR-15s wielded by criminals wearing body armor? Not all that often, in fact pretty rarely. Criminals tend to be poor, and generally can’t afford them. I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s pretty rare. Look at the statistics on how infrequently any long arms are used in crime, let alone ARs, AKs, etc.

Most of these suggestions are based on what someone thinks is happening, rather than what is actually happening.

I will accept any of these restriction under one and only one condition. The restrictions must also apply to registering to vote. As in, if it takes a permit, then so does voting. If I have to wait 6 months or more to get NFA paperwork approved, then it should take that long for a background check to allow me to vote as well. Any of the voting restrictions get struck down in court, so do the linked gun restrictions. Voting is far more dangerous to this country than guns are.

I say this everytime the issue comes up: only when the Dems are willing to live with no firearm information IE: serials, quantity, etc being included in the check and the 4473 is shredded or burned immediately upon approval, will I agree to background checks on all transactions.

Seriously reasonable restrictions on basic human rights? Any restriction you better be happy to have that same restriction apply to your right to a search warrant, your religion, your free speech, your right to a speedy trial, and on and on.

The 2nd amendment isn’t something that needs all these ‘compromises’ to make it palatable to people.

Honestly look at that crappy list and tell me you’d be happy with background checks and fingerprinting to worship at church. That you have to pay fees and get a license from a state if you want to read a book or see a movie (that isn’t deemed too dangerous and covered under a 200 tax). Would anyone be comfortable with universal background checks being required for a search warrant or privacy?

I should be able to go on Amazon.com and have a silenced machine gun sent to me as easily and quickly as a bible or video game. PERIOD. Anything less and we’re compromising and piddling away our gun rights.

Add mandatory gun training in high schools (in the same vein as driver education) culminating with demonstrated competency with real weapons at the local range (or reactivate the ranges that reside in many school basements). It’s for the safety of the kids! The left always talks about how they are “pro education” so this weapons education should fit right in. They can squeeze these firearms classes in the period before their condom+banana health classes.

Unfortunately much of what the liberals want to claim is “reasonable” gun control punishes innocent people for harmless acts (unless you’re David Gregory) or they make you guilty until you can prove your innocence.

Instead laws should target actions that are in of themselves wrong or actions which reasonably put others at risk of having wrong done to them.

As such here’s my take on reasonable gun restrictions:
1.) Make murder illegal.
2.) Make rape illegal.
3.) Make assault illegal.
4.) Make robbery illegal.
… oh that’s not what they meant? Alright, how about these instead…
5.) Violent criminals lose their gun rights.
5a.) Non-violent felons shouldn’t, but if the liberals still insist, make it so that their rights are reinstated after some length of time contingent on good behavior, think of it as similar to parole.
6.) no target shoot inside of city limits (unless you take steps to mitigate noise and build a proper range to contain bullets)
7.) no hunting or target shooting across roads or in campgrounds
8.) no hunting or target shooting while intoxicated (use the same standards as driving)

A little something extra that can be done to improve the situation…
9.) Make NICs freely accessible for face to face deals.

This sounds like your typical liberal playbook. Throw them a bone about the foreign
ammo, and historic gun re-importation, just to sound reasonable and compromising,
while foisting the raft of outrageous limits that they think are common sense solutions
to nonexistent problems.

Aren’t they telling us that it is they who have no self-control, and as such, are constantly projecting that behavior onto everyone else?

“Oh yes, one other reasonable restriction: Requiring less environmentally harmful ammunition for hunting waterfowl is NOT a Commi plot to take our guns. It won’t kill anyone to use bismuth, steel, copper or some other alloy for those few dozen shots when you’re actually out on the water. That lead does real, measurable harm.”

I have yet to see ONE substantiated study where the use of LEAD shot in the pursuit of waterfowl hunting has done real, measurable harm. What HAS done measureable harm are the hundreds of thousands of lost birds that were wounded and not recovered due to the poor lethality of steel shot. It sucks and while it won’t kill us waterfowlers to use alternative shot, at $2-3 (or more) a shell, it does significantly impact us financially. I would vote for any candidate who would finally call b.s. on non-toxic only requirements and let us waterfowlers (and uplanders where its been banned too) to use shells that allow us to take game cleanly and humanely.

Although this is one of the best, most well-thought-out and informed responses to what constitutes “reasonable restrictions” I’ve seen, there are some problems. Here’s my point-for-point:

1) Firearms trusts cannot be used by people who would otherwise be barred from owning the weapons in question. The current proposal to require fingerprinting and vetting of all people authorized by these trusts is a good one.
ME: Agreed, although it would be better if eliminated much of the current use of these trusts altogether by revamping the current NFA laws. Drug cartels don’t sweat them, yet it costs Larry the Law Abiding thousands more than it should to own an automatic weapon.

2) The background check requirements that the NRA fought so bitterly against in the last couple months really were a good idea.
ME: The idea was good, but the bill, as written, was a POS. Instead of forcing all private sales through FFL dealers, why not put NICS online and allow private sellers to run their own FREE checks? I can find all of the sex offenders in my neighborhood, but can’t find out if the guy who wants to buy my old pistol is a felon? (And why aren’t the “safety” proponents talking about this, I wonder? Unless, of course, it’s not about safety and more about pricing out buyers of more modest means.)

3) Modify records-keeping so dealers can’t destroy 4473s as some do out of misguided political convictions. And when they go out of business the ATF gets them. Make each form and NICS check come with a unique identifier, not identifying the weapon or the recipient but the transaction. If the dealer can’t show that he still has the form that goes with the transaction, then loss of FFL and legal consequences. If a pharmacist can do this a gun dealer should be able to.
ME: Agreed, as long as no registry is created at any stage.

4) A couple dozen dealers are responsible…for a disproportionate number of illegal sales, straw sales, out-of-state sales, sales without NICS check and sales of weapons which end up in criminal hands. Don’t defend them. Come down hard on them. I’ve seen this proposed a few times. Each time RKBA lobbyists have screamed.
ME: This may be more about the geography than the dealer. If there are more gangs/criminals in an area, it stands to reason that a gun dealer in the area will be targeted for straw purchases more frequently. My agreement hinges on taking all factors into consideration.

5) Stop blocking the appointment of the top tier of ATF management…
ME: As TTAG’s ED already stated; it’s a non-issue now.

6) Self-defense with Castle Doctrine and No Duty to Retreat when it’s not safe to do so is great. I’m a strong proponent. The current crop of SYG laws has been used as “Kill all the Witnesses” laws. Their use by criminal gangs to skate after gunfights with other gangs on the grounds that the combatants had a right to be in the public place is a sign that laws are really horrible pieces of legislation. Governor Dukakis left office decades ago. Time to stop fighting that battle.
ME: Criminals will always find ways to abuse good laws, usually with help from their lawyers. Just because it is misused doesn’t mean it should be scrapped for all. SYG should ONLY apply to those LEGALLY carrying, either openly or concealed. I’m doubtful that any of those gang members in question had a valid CCW permit, or even owned their weapons legally.

7) A single nationwide shall-issue standard for CCW with nationwide reciprocity. Require significant, not prohibitive and not homeopathic, training and competence testing for that license. Iowa, I’m looking at you; if you are so impaired that you can’t drive a car with corrective lenses it is not safe for you to carry firearms in public.
ME: Find me a blind person applying for a carry permit and we’ll talk. I call shenanigans on this whole issue; it’s a fake. Blind people are applying for carry permits as often as men are lining up for pap smears. Also, some definitions of “legally blind” are very different from stone cold, Stevie Wonder type of blind! It may well be that a person who cannot drive can still easily recognize, identify and proficiently hit a target at the standard 21′ or less distance. How ’bout we wait until a blind CCW actually shoots anyone before we go making cures looking for diseases?

8) End the importation bans on Chinese firearms and ammunition and the new ban on re-importation of old weapons like Garands
ME: Agree wholeheartedly!

9) Re-fund and re-open the Courts that were supposed to allow felons who had served their time to get their civil rights back. In return, institute a policy for prosecutors to stop bargaining away felon-in-possession charges right off the bat.
ME: Also agree!

10) …Drastically reduce the use of paramilitary training and equipment for civilian police. Stop using them as a market for what would otherwise be military contracts.,.
ME: Agree yet again! Traffic cops don’t need to don Dragonskin and have an M4 in the trunk. Save the ninja gear for dynamic entry teams.

He then says: “Recent deadly wildfires in Utah and Colorado were caused by people shooting in areas with dry vegetation. The howls when officials suggested a moratorium on outdoor recreational shooting were loud. Your right to shoot for fun or practice does not extend to setting fires that kill people and cause millions of dollars worth of damage.”
ME: This myth was busted; in a recent test worthy of “Mythbusters,” even the hottest rounds fired into the driest kindling were unable to produce open flame. I sense politricks going on with this issue! Show me some good science before writing bans. The same applies to…

“Oh yes, one other reasonable restriction: Requiring less environmentally harmful ammunition for hunting waterfowl is NOT a Commi plot to take our guns. It won’t kill anyone to use bismuth, steel, copper or some other alloy for those few dozen shots when you’re actually out on the water. That lead does real, measurable harm.”
ME: Again, I’ve seen no credible science showing any “real, measurable harm,” except, of course, to the animal being shot. Many people get shot each year and then live the rest of their lives with a lump of lead inside their bodies. They don’t have medical issues because lead is NOT water soluble, and therefore does not leach into the bloodstream. By the same token, lead sinkers and bullets, when released into the environment, doesn’t leach into water supplies. If a bird eats some shot, it passes through without being absorbed.

Lead is only a danger when it is rendered in a form that the body can absorb, such as the fine particles that once were used in paint, the chips of which caused children who ate them to become sick. Inhaling the fine lead “smoke” when a bullet hits a steel target is more worrisome than eating a duck killed with lead shot, even if you accidentally ingest a piece of it. This whole issue is PETA propaganda. Don’t be suckered in.

Rewrite all the already passed and newly proposed “reasonable restrictions” to apply to the instrumentalities that are used for the 1st amendment’s “free speech,” that could be misused for slander and/or libel, and see if they still seem so “reasonable.”

Plus I don’t think SYG and DTRWS mean what the author thinks they do and the example used for throwing out SYG is very contrived and would be very unusual to have it work that way IRL.

1. Every NICS check does give me a transaction ID that is unique. I have to write that down in my bound book when letting a gun out of the shop where a NICS check is required.

2. If I destroy a completed 4473, there goes my FFL. That is expressly forbidden. 4473’s are inspected by the ATF when they visit. If they see an entry in the bound book for a transfer and they can’t find the 4473, my ass is in a sling right there.

3. When/if a FFL goes out of business, the 4473’s, the bound book and any other additional records the ATF required be kept (for SO2’s, etc) are shipped to the ATF’s records division.

4. If the ATF is doing a forward trace and they call you, seeking a serial # and when/how it came onto your books and how it left your books, you’d better get back to them ASAP. The law says “within 24 hours,” but in high profile cases, you’d better be a lot faster than that.

5. When the ATF comes in for an inspection (which they can do at random, once/year, without being announced or making an appointment), your books had better be in order. If you have minor record-keeping variances from the regs, you get written up and told to correct the errors and you’re told (effectively) “go forth and sin no more.”

If, however, you have guns missing, if you have guns that left without the required NICS check, you didn’t write down the NICS check transaction #, your shop had guns stolen and you didn’t report them, you’re probably going to lose your FFL right there. The way the ATF accomplishes this is that they sit your ass down and explain to you what the consequences are, under federal law, for what you’ve done (or more likely, not done). You’re given a choice: surrender your FFL and they won’t file charges, or you can call a lawyer and start preparing your defense. Most people caught out on ill-kept paperwork surrender their FFLs.

Now, want to know a few things from the FFL’s point of view? It is possible for bad guys to get guns through a FFL, while pursuing a NICS check, and leave the FFL on the hook for the transaction. There are three possibly responses to a NICS check: “Cleared,” “Delayed,” and “denied.”

The first and last are quite easy. In the first case, the customer gets their gun, in the last they don’t. The “delayed” case, however, has real issues. After three days of no change in the status, the customer can have their gun. HOWEVER… the NICS system can (and has) spat back “denied” responses after as much as two+ weeks’ time after a “delayed” response. Now you, the FFL who allowed a gun to go out on a “delayed” response under the letter of the law, are on the liability hook to get that gun back. For those who don’t believe me, allow me to direct you to the FBI’s web page:

The problem for FFL’s from the current raft of gun control proposals is that they often don’t make any improvement to the net result. The problem still comes down to this: the NICS check is an imperfect system. There’s a patchwork quilt of information out there, and it can’t be whistled up from one central repository of information.

The other thing that goes unacknowledged is that FFL’s are the first line of defense against criminals getting guns. Many times, transfers are denied by FFL’s who just don’t like the looks (literally) of the people involved. They never get as far as a NICS check. I haven’t had to deal with this in an in-their-face way, I just make my schedule infinite and my costs high, and someone I don’t want to deal with goes elsewhere. Sometimes, FFL’s call the constabulary, saying “This guy is up to no good. He tried to buy a gun, then was asking how to do X, where X is illegal. Keep an eye on him.” Many LEO’s refuse to put down their donuts long enough to make a note of this, BTW.

Furthermore, the LEO’s aren’t helping matters any. FFL’s in my town used to call (often) to make sure guns they were taking in were not stolen. There’s a database of reported stolen firearms. We FFL’s can’t access it, we have to depend on LEO’s to do this for us. Our local constabulary decided that it was a “waste” of their time to check serial numbers for being listed as stolen. Brilliant, right?

I’ll sign on to tightening gun restrictions when I see Holder prosecute the ATF people involved in shipping guns to Mexico and pressuring FFL’s who wanted to comply with the law to let the guns “walk.” Until such time as I see that, I’m not going to listen to any insistence that I need to adhere to increased regulations (which I follow scrupulously) at the same time people in DC and working for the Feds get to give the finger to the entire concept of following the law.

1. Mental health reports/involuntary holds are put into the central DB for NICS.
2. So are all criminal arrests/convictions/plea agreements.
3. Anyone is able to access this database. Any adult.

Poof. No more problem.

No need to go to a FFL to gain access to the NICS system. You don’t need to wonder whether the private sale you’re about to make is to a good person or not – you’ll know. For employers, there will be no more wondering “Is this person eligible to work at this job?” No more surprises when a new hire turns out to be crazier than loon.

No more sad tales of girls wondering “He’s so cute, but I wonder if he’s an axe murderer?” who are later found dead.

I’m glad you covered this in detail, DG. When I read #3 it really lit my fuse, despite not being an FFL, but I decided to hold fire and see if someone covered this better than I could. Yeah, mission accomplished on that one!

It’s a trap!
The reason we don’t have to agree on further gun regulations are because it is NOT reasonable, common sense, fair, or justifiable to demand more.
The question is a trap.
We actually need to remove many current restrictions to enhance public safety such as gun free zones and may-issue conceal carry rules.

Related: a friend and former co-worker who lives near Boston was telling me about the worst inanities of MA gun law. I think the one that would drive me nuts would be “you have to buy this handgun with a 10lb trigger but it’s totally OK to pay the in-shop pistol smith to convert it to a standard pull weight before you even shoot it”. Ugh.

Fvck this Elmer guy.
I was blown up, lost one eye and the other one has uncorrectable vision loss which puts me at border line not being allowed to drive depending on the state. I shoot loads better than my two-eyed, normal vision friends. This is this guy’s litmus test to carry a gun? What an ass hat. I’m the real world, if I can’t take a shot with certainty, I won’t. At the range or in defense.

Last time I checked, all of the good shooters focused on the front sight anyway. I couldn’t tell you whether a target has numbers in between the rings or not when I’m shooting it — because my eyes are focused where they’re supposed to be.

Are we being totally clear here as to whether we’re talking about restrictions on OWNING guns versus restrictions on when and where you can SHOOT them?

By the Constitution, there can be no legal restrictions on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.

But even a rabid Libertarian loon like me can see how rules like “DO NOT EVER SHOOT AT A BUILDING” where the safety of other individuals is concerned can be a good thing. And I’d also be OK with the confiscation of any gun that was used in a crime. And then they (the Konsitutional Kops) should sell it on the open market and give the money to the taxpayers, who are paying all of their salaries. 😉

Except DiFi would demand to see his certification from a government approved school of journalism before he posted any of this shit to the Internet., But then again this site wouldn’t exist and we wouldn’t be commenting on his BS.

I automatically cringe when I hear Bammo (or any other politician) say “common sense” because I know the next few words are going to screw me some more. I’m beginning to get that way about “reasonable” too.

The list of reasonable restrictions might be fine(not really) if they actually stopped criminal behavior (malum in se). Which is why we, the law abiding find them unreasonable because they affect us but not the supposed target, crime.
As an aside, what I have written above, most would agree is the truth. Is there some way that by repeating the “Big Truth” that it starts to be believed. What is it with human nature or psycology that only “Big Lies” that are repeated become believable??????

1) disband ATF/BATFE and restrict any law enforcement agency from every becoming such an abomination.

2 ) No knowingly selling defective firearms to someone w/o first informing them of what’s wrong.

3) No states are allowed to infringe on the rights of the citizens unless they are being arrested/incarcerated as in they murdered/raped/robbed/assault someone, or absolutely insane.

4 ) 4473’s will have this questions, and these only A) are you a citizen of the U.S.A?

5) Repeal the NFA and all similar infringements (including conceal carry permits) & urge all citizens to disobey such nonsense.

6 ) Any politician who tries to pervert and/or infringe on the 2nd amendment shall be immediately removed from office regardless of rank. Their pay shall be stopped and only given what they earned up to the date they were removed. Their offense will also be reviewed for possibility for being tried for treason.

7) ROTC & firearm safety classes in public schools. Science should be in science class (evolution,chemistry,etc etc) and as such, can’t teach history of the U.S. without impressing why freedom is important and how to defend it. The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not so collectors can hoard weapons or to punch holes in paper, it’s something far more radical. It’s the emergency button that every able bodied American can press when their liberty is threatened.

6) Addendum: No person removed from office under these conditions may ever again run for elected public office nor serve/work in any capacity, even as a volunteer, for any organization that receives any portion of its revenues from tax funds.

Was thinking of the not allowed to run, but I figured if they didn’t do something to warrant a trial they are now just standard citizens and are probably on the blacklisted among voters. Because some offenses are worse than others. Say FOO decided to try to pass a law that would include say, a day waiting period on purchasing firearms, but BAR tried to pass into legislation a rule that no magazines could hold more than 5 rounds. FOO loses their job, BAR goes on trial for low treason, gets tarred, feathered, and ran into prison on a rail.

And of course, if any offender decides to try to cling on to their desk, ANY, yes ANY, American citizen has full authority, whether law enforcement officer or not, to walk in, grab them by the scruff of their neck and drag them the hell out like the disgraceful decadent dogs they are.

my rule has always been “if the police can have it, we can have it.” a lot of things the military has i think we should be able to have, but not all things. we should be able to have a Barrett 50 cal, but not a 40mm grenade launcher.

Reasonable restrictions? I think the 2nd amendment spelled that out – “shall not be infringed”.

Bill of Rights aside, what could I live with? If the civilian police are willing to give up fully autos, I could go with that for civilians. I doubt I’ll ever have the ammo budget for full auto anyway, unless it’s a .22LR. I’ve commented here before that there are certain weapons that the mere possession of which constitute ill will, like a nuclear bomb, rental truck full of diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate, sarin gas, etc.

Other than that, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any restrictions that make any sense at all. Why is it OK to have a 17 inch barrel on a rifle but not a shotgun? Why is it OK to put on plugs and muffs and annoy your neighbors with your .44 magnum, but it’s not OK to muffle your .22 so it doesn’t bother anyone? It seems to me most of our firearms laws were written and passed by people who had never fired a firearm in their life. But then I guess that sort of logic goes for just about ever other (non-firearms) law on the books as well.

If we as individuals do not have the right to own such weapons, from where does that right for our elected government to own such weapons? Rights are not created by vote, likewise they are not taken away.

The idea of “reasonable” does not exist because the other side does not find anything reasonable. There is no compromise because their idea of compromise is I will take some now and come back for more later.

You cannot have a compromise when only the gun control crowd is invited into private legislation discussions. You cannot have compromise when the Newtown parents get to decide what bills they want passed.

Compromise and reasonable goes both ways and the other side only wants there restrictions without consideration for our rights and is willing to lie and make up facts to do it.

For those reasons just stated, there can NEVER be compromise unless the other side respects our rights.

There can never be “compromise” because the Constitution is quite clear: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Following your reasoning in a previous post, Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (which overturned DC’s handgun ordinance) must be clearly somewhere between schizophrenic and full-on psychotic.

Justice Scalia wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. . . Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (Ellipses are just to remove the case references. The full opinion is easily found online. It makes for very interesting reading. He carefully analyzes each part of the 2nd Amendment, including what the words ‘keep’, ‘bear’ and ‘arms’ mean. You can’t just pull the 2nd Amendment out of its legal context and use it as a clobber text, the way some religious fanatics use Bible verses.)

As a gun owner, I find this thread rather alarming. It’s almost totally void of any knowledge of the legal history of the United States. You’re not doing the defenders of gun rights any favors. ‘[S]hall not be infringed’ does not mean what most of you think it does.

The ‘right to bear arms’ has ALWAYS come with limitations. Once again, I urge somebody to actually read Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Look, I’ll freely admit that I’m a liberal gun owner kicking the hornet’s nest. I’m extremely unhappy with almost all of the gun control proposals coming from Democrats and I’ve let them know that.

OTOH, you people are even crazier. There is somebody on this thread who claims they we, as individual citizens, should be allowed to own thermonuclear weapons because we should be allowed to own anything the state owns. Do you not see how incredibly insane this is?

They right to bear arms has a history. Learn it. It’s not just limited to ‘shall not infringe’ taken out of context.

The basics of this statement are correct, “we” do own mass destruction weapons, we have hired our government and military to properly maintain them. However, honestly, if you can afford to buy destructive weapons, maintain them, and deal with the consequences of misuse, then yes, an individual should be allowed to own whatever they choose. Bear in mind, you won’t be popular with your neighbors.

Almost 30 years ago, I read an article: “Build an atomic bomb and wake up the neighborhood!” The author wanted to get the information published before it became illegal to even reveal the big secret. Turns out it’s trivially simple; the only hard part is getting ahold of 32 pounds of U-235, or 24 pounds of Pu-239.
.
The author went on to say that if your intent is to cause the greatest disturbance to the greatest number of people, you’d have better results taking down a few cross-country electrical power lines.

TTAG has just lost some of my respect. Here are my reasonable thoughts on the subject:
100% repeal of all federal gun legislation of any kind.
100% Disbanding of all federal departments involved in firearms manufacture or ownership.
100% of gun legislation is left to the States.

No federal involvement at all, there is NO authority for managing gun *anything* in the Constitution and in fact, there is an amendment specifically enumerating a DENIAL of any authority.

Yes. And there’s even more to it than that! A careful perusal of the Constitution reveals that any government activity that is not expressly permitted to the government by the Constitution is supposed to be forbidden to it.

Following your reasoning, Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (which overturned DC’s handgun ordinance) must be clearly somewhere between schizophrenic and full-on psychotic.

Justice Scalia wrote: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. . . Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” (Ellipses are just to remove the case references. The full opinion is easily found online. It makes for very interesting reading.)

As a gun owner, I find this thread rather alarming. It’s almost totally void of any knowledge of the legal history of the United States. You’re not doing the defenders of gun rights any favors. ‘Do not infringe’ does not mean what you think it does.

The right to keep and bear arms is absolute, until and unless the Constitution gets amended. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean we all have an unqualified right to SHOOT them anywhere anytime we want to. There are regulations like “no firing inside the city limits” and stuff that protect other people from stray bullets. I have no problem with statutory limits on where your bullet can go, just like speed limits and railroad crossing gates – they can protect the lives of innocent bystanders. Maybe I wasn’t clear in my tirade – the GRABBERS, the ones who seem to think that the 2nd is negotiable, who want to ultimately outlaw ownership of arms[1], are the ones with the broken minds.

[1] that includes everything from fingernails to fusion bombs. Anything the government can have its employers can have, since we’re the owner anyway – we paid for it!

You didn’t bother to read Justice Scalia’s opinion did you? We can tell. Your response is so ignorant it’s not even wrong, just totally disconnected from reality.

You really should read his ruling. It’s quite illuminating. The second amendment is a codification of pre-existing rights, as are the first and fourth amendments. That is, they have their roots in centuries of English common law. History that the Framers knew and understood, as you obviously don’t.

Given the history of this right, it comes with built-in limitations. Reasonable regulations are based on these limitations. ‘Shall not be infringed’ is NOT a synonym for ‘shall have no limitations.’

‘Arms’ are limited to ‘weapons in common use’ and to weapons that are not ‘dangerous or unusual’.

You can’t just rip ‘shall not be infringed’ out of its historical and legal context and use it to beat people over the head.

And calling me ‘comrade’ or ‘psychotic’ does not an argument make. I can respect a conservative like Scalia, as much as I disagree with him, because he writes clearly and shows a deep knowledge of the historical and legal context. You don’t even show a shallow knowledge of such things.

I am one of the Hispanic folks. I read, write and speak very, very well. If you did not see me and heard me speak you would not know I am of Hispanic decent. TTAG must not do anything different. Anyone else of any other background can find this wonderful site like I did. I am an American born citizen. I consider myself an American. I was called American at every other country I went to during my stint in the army. TTAG please do not try to cater to any other “Label”. Just put out a quality product and people will find you. I am offended by the use of the word “Hispanic” with means of Spanish origin. Now, aren’t the Spanish folks Caucasian folks who speak Spanish in Europe. They went across an ocean and intermingled with the natives of that new land???? I am happy just being an American.

Seeing the number of people on here who argue for limiting a natural right, quoting Justice Scalia makes me even more sure the Republic is lost and cannot be recovered. Justice Scalia is WRONG. He has NO authority to DECIDE what is reasonable when it comes to citizens’ guns. He also things he can INTERPRET the constitution. He does not. The job of the Supreme Court of the United States is not to interpret the Constitution, it is WRITTEN IN ENGLISH.

Bottom line: The US Constitution provides absolutely ZERO authority over Guns, Religion, Speech, how we run a business, Where we live, Who VOTES and many many many other things they have just *DECIDED* to create laws concerning. The Supreme Courts job was to judge if any law had authority in the Constitution… not if it was ‘reasonable’.

The Republic is lost.. and it’s all your fault… You so-called conservatives who are willing to give in to ‘reason’ from people who hate this country and YOUR FREEDOM.

Right. It’s always obvious and specific what words mean. Laws and constitutions never contain vague or even contradictory sentences. People never disagree what the words of a contract imply or puzzle how to apply old strictures to new circumstances. We never need someone to adjudicate which of competing interpretations is correct. NOT!

You made a general argument that judges never need to be called upon to adjudicate competing interpretations of laws because the laws are written in English. That’s clearly a false assertion about any language. If it were true, we wouldn’t have numerous Christian denominations fiercely contending over their differing interpretations of the words in the Bible. I don’t where you came up with the idea that it’s always plainly obvious what words mean.

As to your specific question, the problem is not with ‘shall not be infringed’, the problem is how to interpret ‘keep and bear arms’. This phrase has a history, a history centuries long. It does not mean, contrary to the beliefs of many on this board, that a citizen can keep or bear any weapon at any place or time for any purpose. Just as ‘no law abridging the freedom of speech’ does not mean you have the natural right to say anything to any person at any time or place.

It was understood by the men who wrote the first amendment that the natural right of free speech excluded slander and incitement to riot. But what exactly is slander? Where are the boundaries? If I give a speech calling for the violent overthrow of the government, does that come within my natural right of free speech? (Under U.S. case law, probably so, as long as I present it in the abstract and don’t incite the crowd to immediate violent action.)

The idea that free citizens have natural rights to free speech and to keep and bear arms developed under the system of English common law, i.e. law by judicial precedent. That is, they have a legal history of rulings by judges and can only be understood by referring to that history. You can’t just pluck the words out of time and claim that your interpretation is the only possible one.

“You made a general argument that judges never need to be called upon to adjudicate competing interpretations of laws because the laws are written in English.”

No, I made a SPECIFIC argument against the Supreme Court being able to “Interpret” the law that CREATED the Supreme Court. Also a SPECIFIC argument against Justice Scalia INVENTING limitations within a law that clearly has no limits mentioned. Oh, and different Christian denominations DO ascribe different meanings to the same words in the Bible. Not because there’s a problem with English, but because they are reading a poor translation of the original text. This argument of yours is non-sequitur.

“As to your specific question, the problem is not with ‘shall not be infringed’, the problem is how to interpret ‘keep and bear arms’.”

Ok, which of those words confuses you?

“If I give a speech calling for the violent overthrow of the government, does that come within my natural right of free speech?”

Yes. You have the absolute freedom to advocate anything you want. It becomes a problem when you initiate force. Also, screw “case law” there is no such thing. Judges do not make law and their decisions are only relevant in THAT case they decide.

“The idea that free citizens have natural rights to free speech and to keep and bear arms developed under the system of English common law”

No, it was developed from the biblical principal that God gives everyone Free Will and ownership of your self.

Don’t throw me Wiki links to prove some fallacious point or another. Just because you can find a few people that agree with you does not make you right. If 99% of people all thought the other 1% should be thrown into a volcano to appease the Barbque gods, does not make such a practice right.

I love your sarcasm. It means you have nothing factual to add. Now you’re just wasting my time.

“The basics of this statement are correct, “we” do own mass destruction weapons, we have hired our government and military to properly maintain them. However, honestly, if you can afford to buy destructive weapons, maintain them, and deal with the consequences of misuse, then yes, an individual should be allowed to own whatever they choose. Bear in mind, you won’t be popular with your neighbors.”

I guess, if you incinerate yourself, then that solves that problem, doesn’t it? Are you going to really tell me that someone is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a working nuke just to crack open a beer and say ‘hey guys, watch this!”

Talk about reductio ad absurdum… Really now, I must insist.. do you have anything of substance to add? Otherwise, I’m just going to let you have the last absurd word and ignore you.